Forum menu
Eyewitness accounts (several)
Like that of Emma you mean? Who just happened to be on the train.
As National Organiser for Momentum and part of Jezza's campaign team.
Impartial bystander, then?
Impartial bystander, then?
Possibly somewhat more impartial than a businessman who might stand to lose millions (if not billions) in profits if Corbyn gets a chance to enact his policies of rail re-nationalisation and protection of the public ownership status of the NHS, yes.
Meanwhile, the tories and their mates are screwing our country. Interesting that that issue isn't important to some.
Like the Labour Party who cant even fill a shadow cabinet. And they are meant to be opposing the Tories not having a [s]coup, civil war[/s] minor disagreement re who of the two unsuitabale candidates should be leader
Like that of Emma you mean?
like many
did you read
the articles
Possibly somewhat more impartial than a businessman who might stand to lose millions (if not billions) in profits if Corbyn gets a chance to enact his policies of rail re-nationalisation and protection of the public ownership status of the NHS, yes.
Well, I suppose its not the first time the integrity of a Virgin has been called into question due to their connection with the messiah...
like many
did you read
the articles
no
i
only
read
things
posted
in
pointlessly
styled
free
form
verse
format
(What was the name of your previous log in, by the way? Still waiting on an answer to that one. Much like clodhopper, another who looks/sounds suspiciously like someone who was someone else before.)
C'mon Flashy, surely you can do better than ad hominem to argue your point?
Not an ad hom, more an interest of mine! Want to know who he/she is/was. The typing style is needlessly stylised to the point of clearly trying to make a point, hence picking on it.
Just found it amusing that one of the eyewitnesses being trumpeted around happened to be a [s]cult member[/s] staffer.
Just found it amusing that one of the eyewitnesses being trumpeted around happened to be a [s]cult member[/s] staffer
Be that as it may, she still has much less to gain should Corbyn become PM than Branson has to lose.
I like the idea of approaching politics in a different way, however I'm not sure I'd trust a man/team to run the country when they can't even organise a train seat in advance.
This just goes to show that we see what we want to see. Corbynistas see a great gesture of humility; the others see incompetence or a publicity stunt.
This just goes to show that we see what we want to see. Corbynistas see a great gesture of humility;
C'mon that's too harsh. They are not that gullable.
Jezza been caught lying. The train [b]did not stop[/b] before he sat down. No one got off to make space. As for reserved seats, Corbyn is a frequent traveller so why not reserve ? Answer he intended to make the sit on the floor piece whether it was true or not. Also myself as a frequent train traveller I am well aware of the simple technique of waiting for the train to leave and then sitting in empty reserved seats as its most likely the person isn't on the train.
Anyway Channel 4 piece clealry showing Corbyn and his media team and the journalists writing thenstory have been telling porkie pie after porkie pie. Danm CCTV eh 8)
Branson has to lose
Branson has little if anything to lose, he'd just move onto something else. Trains are a sideline and I would wager more trouble than they are worth as a business.
What was the name of your previous log in, by the way? Still waiting on an answer to that one. Much like clodhopper, another who looks/sounds suspiciously like someone who was someone else before.)
Yes my thoughts entirely. Spurred on by a Moderators post on another thread where he spotted that a user's IP address was identical to DrJ's - PMSL
Answer he intended to make the sit on the floor piece whether it was true or not.
BUT it does happen, doens't it? People do sit on floors. So if you wanted to make a point about it, would it make sense to abandon filming and do it another day just because that particular service wasn't full?
Ends > means
Dont argue
err that's it
BUT it does happen, doens't it? People do sit on floors. So if you wanted to make a point about it, would it make sense to abandon filming and do it another day just because that particular service wasn't full?
Ah, thats right - its OK for Lefties to lie about stuff because its for
[img] 
[/img]
@molgrips yes people do sit on the floor, and stand up. As a train commuter for most of my 30 year workimg career I am very familair with paying many £1000's of pounds a year (with parking it cost £700 a minth to commute from Guildford) to ride on packed trains and the tube is much worse of course. The trains where full when they where nationalised, the service from Paddington to Bristol was particularly bad in the early 1980's when I was using it regularly. I have commuted by public transport to work in UK, US and Singapore. The commuter trains and metro in Paris are full and standing in rush hour too.
Btw your question about how much inequality is acceptable is the correct one
Btw your question about how much inequality is acceptable is the correct one
So answer it then.
Ah, thats right - its OK for Lefties to lie about stuff because its for
As I said, he should've said if it was a stunt. So no, lying's not ok. Crap point though.
I'm near the vinegar stroke and can't hold out much longer, anyone seen comrade ernie?
was it a gentler kind of lie mol?
#posttruthlies
Branson has little if anything to lose
Yeah, sure, he's just running one of the UK's largest train franchises for shits and giggles, nothing to do with the £1bn in sales Virgin Trains made last year. 🙄
Straight,principled, un-spun
😀
Zokes - and were did that 1 billion derive from, and what profits and profitability were achieved? Were they/was it massive?
was it a gentler kind of lie mol?
D'you want me to explain my position a third time?
No its not as funny third time round.
Dont forget
Almost Straight, occasionally principled and only spun when necessary to make a point
Good old Jezza, he's a real character you have to admit that. When does the real politics re-start?
@THM: [url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3241294/Virgin-Rail-lines-27m-dividend-sales-hit-1bn.html ]Linky[/url]
Do you honestly think he operates a 1bn turnover business with the aim of making a loss?
Almost Straight, occasionally principled and only spun when necessary to make a point
And yet oddly still a much more truthful and better alternative to the absolute cockwombles on the other side.
There are some numbers you take with a pinch of salt. But correct me if I am wrong (I only skim read the data) looks like "adjusted" profit figured (cough) made a ...........5%, not that's right a FIVE percent op margin. 😯
Unless I am misreading the 000s in a billion!!
And yet oddly still a much more truthful and better alternative to the absolute cockwombles on the other side.
Phew, where do I send my £25?
But you're correct. Remember that bloke with the odd haircut who kept banging on about "austerity". People believed that too!!
not that's right a FIVE percent op margin.
note also that:
[i]Virgin received £37.5million in compensation over track maintenance and disruption [u]due to failures caused by Network Rail.[/u][/i]
Yay for that example of outstanding performance by a nationalised rail industry 😆
Well, this is from that article:
A spokesman [for Virgin Trains] said: ‘Our business grew considerably last year, with annual turnover now exceeding £1billion....'
Why would a spokesperson for VT lie about their turnover? And even if they were, would it be exaggerated so much that in truth Emma from Momentum does indeed stand to gain more than Branson's company would lose if the railways were re-nationalised (which is the topic that started this tangentially relevant wormhole).
Dont worry about Emma, she's still searching for the little people sitting on the seats behind all the luggage, bless her
But read what makes up the turnover - and then, if you can bare it - work out the "massive" profitability levels.....
Yay for the performance of the nationalised rail industry
Yes, because an arms-length government body with a board appointed mostly by a government that hates public ownership is the peak of nationalised industry performance 🙄
If you tories hate public ownership of the railways so much, why are you so happy for the various European nationalised railway companies to run franchises here?
But read what makes up the turnover - and then, if you can bare it - work out the "massive" profitability levels.....
So he does just run it for shits and giggles. Perhaps you could get a job as his advisor to stop him wasting all his time and money?
Now there's an idea. I'll ask Emma if she want to join me to do sales and marketing.
Dear Dickie,I am writing to apply......
[can you give me a quick tutorial on the numbers before the interview?]
"No, woman no cry
Said, said, said I remember when we used to sit
In the government yard in Trenchtown"
[img]
[/img]
"In the jungle, the quiet jungle
The lion sleeps tonightA-wimoweh, a-wimoweh, a-wimoweh, a-wimoweh"
[img]
[/img]
Many, many more over here - @Corbyn_Karaoke
😀
ninfan - MemberVirgin received £37.5million in compensation over track maintenance and disruption due to failures caused by Network Rail.
Yay for that example of outstanding performance by a nationalised rail industry
Schedule 8 payments are as complicated as hell, if the delay is caused by another TOC network rail pays the money out then claims it from the TOC responsible so that figure is absolutely meaningless. And they're are also meant to be used to refund passengers not go towards profits, btw. Also funny that you highlighted 'due to failures' but not track maintenance. Is that because failures represent a higher percentage of that figure?
People who want nationaliaed industries clearly weren't about in the 1970's and 80's. You'll see in the fantasy cars thread there aren't any Brirish Leyland vehicles.
British Leyland was part nationalised in 1975 and then fully privatised again in 1984. It takes several years for new car models to be developed and launched from scratch. It was part nationalised for a few years because of the failures of the privatised companies. There had been no serious investment or development for years when the government was forced to step in.
To make a comparison between public railways and a car manufacturer which was part nationalised for 9 years is absurd.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/09/state-owned-east-coast-rail-franchise-paid-225m-pounds-treasury-still-faces-privatisation ]State-owned East Coast paid £225m to Treasury[/url]
Dont worry about Emma, she's still searching for the little people sitting on the seats behind all the luggage, bless her
[img] 
[/img]
To make a comparison between public railways and a car manufacturer which was part nationalised for 9 years is absurd.
Better than his normal guff then if it was ONLY absurd
Ernie_lynch - Member
British Leyland was part nationalised in 1975 and then fully privatised again in 1984. It takes several years for new car models to be developed and launched from scratch. It was part nationalised for a few years because of the failures of the privatised companies.
British Leyland was formed at the behest of the Labour government, which forced all the UK car companies to merge. That went so well that it had to be nationalised to keep it afloat.
While it might take several years to bring on a new model, quality control was awful from the start.
I remember someone talking about his Rover 3500 which turned out to have had old newspapers stuffed inside it during production to stop it rattling. And which cut out if you went round a roundabout too fast.
Double post. Shite virgin east coast WiFi. Ironically... 😳
Anyway... Further illustration that Corbyn isn't very interested in taking seats.
(As I say, I travel on that line a lot, and you do sometimes see people standing between carriages, when there are empty unreserved seats further down the train. Or reserved seats people haven't turned up for. You'd not normally walk past these to sit on the floor, but hey. My main feeling is that if he struggles with seating arrangements to this extent, then he really shouldn't try connecting to their WiFi...)
And which cut out if you went round a roundabout too fast.
Given the learner driver who very nearly pulled out on me at a roundabout I was going round at speed today, and whose instructor only just got the emergency stop happening in time, that could have been quite a useful feature for me actually 😆
People who want nationaliaed industries clearly weren't about in the 1970's and 80's.
Yep, that's the only choice isn't it? Nationalised companies HAVE to behave like they're still in the 70's... 🙄
Discussion of the railways tends to illustrate the point made by the ORR that
The complex structure of the British rail industry makes it difficult for stakeholders to understand the income, expenditure and government funding of the industry as a whole.
And that more work needs to be done (or at least people need to read their work, but since when have facts been important)
We consider that transparency strengthens the industry?s accountability and deepens our understanding of the rail industry?s finances to improve informed debate about the value for money of the industry for its funders.
Informed debate is about as good a misnomer as gentler, kinder politics 😉
Further illustration that Corbyn isn't very interested in taking seats.
Boom tish 🙂 he can't even "win" a vacant seat. As Johnx says if you see a reserved seat with no one in it you just sit down as soon as train is moving if not before. Job done.
Don't forget Corbyn has been recalled to face the Home Affairs Select Committee for a "mis-statement" or what anyone else would call a lie regarding his continued associations with a Holocaust denier.
Nationalisation is dead. Gone. Finihsed. A thing of the past. To speak of it will be electoral suicide, an absolute open goal for the other parties to speak of the failed policies of the 1970's and how Corbyn is trying to take the UK back to those dark dysfunctional days.
Yep, that's the only choice isn't it? Nationalised companies HAVE to behave like they're still in the 70's...
My point @nick is their is no model of success. Look at the phone system, BT is a bit cr@p but its a million times better than it was.
Nationalised industries will become strike central. Politically morivated trade unionists wanting to prove their credentials againat a Tory government or knowing that a Labour government will never fight them so asking for the moon on a stick.
The Unions brought down Callahan's Labour Government. Smart eh ? It was 18 years before Labour formed another government. 18.
Jambas, how very dare you. Public ownership is the holy grail and the solution to all our problems.
The new (sic) idea of a [s]National Enterprise Board[/s] National Investment Bank led by [s]Anthony Wedgewood Benn[/s] Jezza & Co to invest (sic) in the commanding height of the economy is also a no-brainer. Dont we need more Leylands? After all we dont wannt Jonny Foreigner coming in and investing their dirty private money.
Still out of the economic wasteleands of the 70s some of these little darlings did emerge back into private or semi-private hands - BTG, CDC, Actis etc
Having had the "pleasure" of working for a state controlled bank for 9 months I can safely say politicians and banks are the absolute worst combination. Politically motivated lending with an implicit backstop by the tax payer (no need for a bailout as the taxpayers are on the hook from the start)
The heavy hand also exists throughout our privatised (sic) railway industry.
My favourite bit of the Chief Clown's little message was when he widened his eyes, "angry Rick" style on the word "nationalised". Oooh, that's me proper scared, then. What a ninny.
Comedy gold.
So from the point of view of the democratic socialist how do you encourage the likes of Richard Branson who is undoubtedly a self made man and directly or indirectly contributes however much to the UK economy from just upping sticks and going elsewhere.
The model left wing army that is the SNP would suggest (with a straight face) cut corporation tax
No wonder they are so popular, you really can have it all.
Jambas, how very dare you. Public ownership is the holy grail and the solution to all our problems.
What, like private ownership?
No mol, oddly enough its more complicated than the current debate would suggest. But still good to go back to the old days of nationalisation v privatisation etc, we have come a long way havent we?
we will be privatising the NHS next!
What, like private ownership?
Well, from a train users perspective, that certainly seems like a better model to me.
My point @nick is their is no model of success. Look at the phone system, BT is a bit cr@p but its a million times better than it was.
really? I'm willing to bet money there are any number of customers of BT who'll be more than happy to tell you what a shower of chimps they are
So British Leyland means no nationalised industries forever?
By that logic the banking crisis means nationalised banks forever.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/matt-cartoons-august-2016/ ]good take on it by Matt in the Torygraph[/url]
😆
No mol, oddly enough its more complicated than the current debate would suggest.
I understand that, that's why I'm not the one making fatuous statements about public ownership!
It's clear that if it ever happened we'd need a new model for it. No-one wants to go back to the 70s, nor does anyone want to go back to the mid 80s (except for greedy Thatcherites).
However as a fundamental principle, I (and by the sound of it quite a few others) don't think fundamental public infrastructure should be run for private profit. The two concepts aren't aligned.
Look at the phone system, BT is a bit cr@p but its a million times better than it was.
Hmm.. now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the publicly owned BT do some pretty world leading research and development in telecoms technology?
It's not like there have been any strikes recently by employees of privately-owned TOCs, ay Jambas?
really? I'm willing to bet money there are any number of customers of BT who'll be more than happy to tell you what a shower of chimps they are
... having switched to a better oh hang on....
Private company...
Perhaps not - but this is a thread about Jezza not molgrips.
Now there is a perfectly valid and sound argument for the role of governments - one that counters a lot of what the Tories are saying ([b]if not doing[/b]) eg "you cant solve a debt crisis by taking on more debt*" - without resorting to the clapped out proposals being spouted by the cuckoos. Unfortunately the current HM Opposition (to the extent that it exists) are not equipped to make the correct arguement.
* simply illustrated that Dave did not understand the type of recession that we were in. But neither did the oppo, hence the largely inappropriate policy responses that we have had here and elsewhere conducted by politicians of all parties.
The current debate remains framed in the wrong context. The cuckoos are simply muddying the waters further, so they deserve to dismissed as a credible opposition. Not that they need any outside help with that.
Thx, binners, Matt hits the spot.
Cuckoos?
And THM you've exposed another problem with democracy. There's no way to ensure that the people who get voted in are actually any good at running a country - they are only good at persuading voters to vote for them.
I guess that's what you mean by cuckoos. And in a staggering display of synchronicity, I can hear the only cuckoo I've heard all year calling outside my window....
True - which is why I prefer to minimise their role as much as possible. Perhaps we agree 😉
Its a sign Mol, stick a £5 on Old Jezza for the 20:20 race at Westminster....
It has long been apparent to me that politicians can only poke and prod at this juggernaut machine that is our economy, rather than completely control it. What they can do is take what it produces and apply it in different ways.
That's why I vote on ideological grounds.
They can and do a lot more than that
Monetary policy
Fiscal policy
Supply-side reforms
Direct intervention
State support
Tax breaks etc
not really ideological
"Control the economy", hmm?
Has that actually worked, anywhere? Just saying.
It has long been apparent to me that politicians can only poke and prod at this juggernaut machine that is our economy, rather than completely control it.
Indeed. If only there were a recent example of a party trying to temper the more unfair and unjust sides of neoliberal free-market capitalism, with say more public spending on health and education, yet without resorting to mad leftie nonsense.
Can't think of any recent examples of that though. Can you....?
not really ideological
I disagree - you can pull all those levers, but it's the *direction* in which you pull them that's ideological.
with say more public spending on health and education, yet without resorting to mad leftie nonsense.
Er.. what? Can you please define mad leftie nonsense for us, just to be clear?
Mad leftie nonsense:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament
Submarines with no weapons doing pleasure cruises of the North Atlantic
Renationalising everything
for starters
"Jambas, how very dare you. Public ownership is the holy grail and the solution to all our problems".What, like private ownership?
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/09/state-owned-east-coast-rail-franchise-paid-225m-pounds-treasury-still-faces-privatisation ]State-owned East Coast paid £225m to Treasury - but still faces privatisation [/url]
[b][i]Results published by Directly Operated Railways (DOR), the company established in July 2009 to take over the running of the London-to-Edinburgh route from the loss-making National Express, showed that its premium payments to the government had risen from £202m to £216.8m in 2014, making a total of more than £1bn over its five-year lifespan.[/i][/b]
Most and least complained about railways companies :
[b] TRAIN COMPANIES WITH THE MOST COMPLAINTS, APRIL TO JUNE 2015
Company / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Jan-Mar) / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Apr-Jun)
Virgin Trains West Coast / 231.8 / 196.5
Virgin Trains East Coast / 166.7 / 142.3
Chiltern / 94.8 / 102.2
East Midlands Trains / 64.7 / 59.0
Arriva Trains Wales / 53.3 / 44.7
CrossCountry / 48.7 / 40.1
Northern Rail / 24.5 / 36.6
First TransPennine Express / 40.2 / 35.3
Greater Anglia / 28.4 / 34.5
First Great Western / 36.9 / 28.7
London Midland / 30.0 / 27.3
ScotRail / 25.5 / 21.9
Merseyrail / 18.5 / 15.9
c2c / 17.7 / 15.5
Southeastern / 23.4 / 14.7
Govia Thameslink Railway / 20.5 / 13.8
South West Trains / 18.2 / 12.0
Southern / 9.3 / 7.3
London Overground / 2.8 / 3.3[/b]
NB London Overground = publicly owned.
The Tory privatisation fetish is so absurd that they are willing for foreign state owned companies such French, German, and Dutch, to have rail franchises, just as long as it's not a British state owned company.
Most people see the stupidity of this pointless right-wing dogma which I guess explains why even Tory voters support [i]British[/i] nationalised rail companies.
[img] 
[/img]
Unilateral nuclear disarmament
Submarines with no weapons doing pleasure cruises of the North Atlantic
Renationalising everything
Trident aside - is Corbyn's policy to renationalise everything? Did I miss that?
Trident aside - is Corbyn's policy to renationalise everything? Did I miss that?
I think binner's point is that despite the public, even Tory voters, sharing Corbyn's "hard-left" views on rail nationalisation he considers it to be, quote, [i]"mad leftie nonsense".[/i]
Which is why he is backing the plot to remove Corbyn.
Unfortunately for binners the only alternative to Corbyn also supports this mad leftie nonsense of rail nationalisation.
Personally I think binners should just vote Tory, he appears to be more right-wing than most Tory voters. I can't imagine why he would even consider voting Labour. Well not this week anyway who knows about next week.......another week another rant.
Has binners ever liked a politician, ever?
No, I don't believe so. Well not for very long anyway - he did at the start of this thread like Corbyn.
with say more public spending on health and education, yet without resorting to mad leftie nonsense.
You mean PFI? A policy which mortgaged the future, achieving short terms gains at huge long term cost to the taxpayer, and way in excess than it would have been if it were simple direct investment by govt funded by public borrowing. Mad lefty nonsense indeed.
The problem for Labour is that it needs people like Binners to vote for them to get into power. You win elections in the centre ground, not the left of the right. The left will vote for Corbyn, the right will vote Tory, that's easy, but the centre will decide who to vote for and so, who will win. Right now, Labour under Corbyn, IMO, will get very few centre ground votes so will lose any election with him at the helm.
Whether that concerns Labour or Corbyn supporters is a different question altogether.